8/16/2012

joe's still in, artur's showing up and abby says bye

yes, that was rather obvious. but apparently some people thought there was a chance he would be dumped for his 'chains' remark.

of course not. it was not an error. it was scripted.

in real news from lucy madison, she reports:The Republican National Committee (RNC) on Thursday announced six new
convention speakers, including a handful of people thought to have been
considered potential running mates for Mitt Romney as well as former
Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a co-chairman of President Obama's 2008
presidential campaign and current Romney supporter.

did you read kat's 'Abby goes' last night? abby elliot won't be back on 'snl.' that's probably a good thing actually.

look at casey wilson. she's so much better off as penny on 'happy endings.'

i'm sure something similar will happen to abby because she's also naturally funny.

i think kat nailed it about how saturday night live is the kiss of death for actresses in most cases.

Thursday,
August 16, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, a State of Law MP goes
on TV to blame the Kurds for today's wave of violence, Julian Assange
and Ecuador steal focus, Camp Ashraf, Jill Stein and Roseanne Barr, and
more.

Anthony
Fest: The whistle blower website WikiLeaks released another trove of
confidential documents today. Last month WikiLeaks released thousands of
Pentagon documents most associated with the US occupation of Iraq. In
contrast, the documents made public today include thousands of
diplomatic cables -- communications between the State Dept and
Washington and US consulates all around the world. The documents cover
both the George W. Bush and the Barack Obama administrations. WikiLeaks
gave an advance look at the documents to several media organizations
including the New York Times and the British newspaper the Guardian.
Those publications now have articles on their websites analyzing the
documents. WikiLeaks says it will post the documents on its own website
in the coming days although it has said its site was the target of a
cyber attack today. The documents release is certain to provoke tension
between the US and its allies. For example, some of the cables say that
Saudi donors are the largest financiers of terror groups. Other cables
detail the cover-up of US military activities. One of them records a
meeting last January between US Gen David Petreaus and the president of
Yemen about air attacks against rebels in Yemen. The president, Ali
Abdullah Saleh, tells Petraeus, "We'll continue to say they are our
bombs and not yours." According to the Guardian, the documents reveal
that some Arab leaders had privately urged an air attack against Iran
and that US officials had been instructed to spy on the United Nations'
leadership. Among the other disclosures are deep fears in Washington and
London about the security of Paksitan's nuclear weapons. Another
document asserts massive corruption at high levels of the Afghanistan
government saying the Afghan vice president traveled to the United Arab
Emirates carrying $52 million in cash. Still other documents disparage
the British military in Afghanistan.

In 2010, WikiLeaks was still doing major releases. In fact, that was probably the high water mark for WikiLeaks. Already, Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks had released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Still in 2010, June 7, 2010,
the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he
stood accused of being the leaker of the video. And that was part of
the change. At that point, the head of WikiLeaks and the face of
WikiLeaks to the media and the world, Julian Assange, was stating that
they didn't know who the leaker was (that leaked the material to them).
Ever since, Julian Assange has lived on the defensive.

Today he's in the news cycle because Ecuador is offering him asylum.

If
the last four years have taught those of us on the left anything, it
should have taught us that there is no excuse or justification to whore
for one person, that we either stand up for what we believe in and do so
truthfully or we're liars in the eyes of the whole country.

Ecuador has granted asylum to Julian Assange which is pretty much conditional upon
his getting out of England or else hoping to live in the Ecuador
Embassy in the UK. Michael Ratner wants to assert that Ecuador is
"doing what was legally required here." That is incorrect. That is a
falsehood. As someone who has repeatedly advocated for Canada to grant
asylum to US war resisters, I have never argued that Canada had to do so
or that they were legally required to. Because they weren't. No
country is required to grant someone asylum. That is why cases for
asylum are argued.

There are enough lies out
there with regards to the Julian Assange case. More do not need to be
put out there. It is also dishonest for Michael to assert claims to
legal rights of asylum when stating that the UK needs to back off.
Julian Assange was released on bail. He is in violation of British law
currently.

You can assert that B means we
follow the law while ignore the earlier event (A). But when you assert
that, you look like you are eithter uninformed or dishonest to anyone
who knows the actual details. In addition, you make others look foolish
for believing you. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is an intelligent and caring person.
And she believed she could trust that 'trusted voices' were telling the
truth. She has outraged several who have e-mailed this site about her
comments regarding the accusations against Julian Assange in Sweden.
Her pithy claim that they wouldn't even be crimes in the US is
embarrassing. It appears that the Grand Idiot Naomi Wolf has influenced
Wilder's take (either through reading or hearing Wolf or hearing
others repeat Wofl's arguments). Here's a tip for every woman in the
US, when it comes to rape don't trust Naomi. This is the woman who
stayed silent following a gang rape -- excuse me, that's wrong. This is
a woman who stayed silent in terms of going to the authorities but who
laughed with the rapists the night after a gang rape -- laughed about
the victim, laughed about the victim's shoe left behind in the frat
house as she escaped following her gang rape. Why did Naomi laugh? She
didn't want to be called a lesbian.

Nothing
could hurt the cock-driven (cock-starved?) Naomi Wolf more than to be
called a lesbian. Why didn't she call the authorities? On that she's
remained silent. But when a professor apparently made a pass at her in
the midst of a private evening (he denied it, she said it happened), she
wanted the whole world to know about it, over a decade later. (Did it
happen? I have no idea. But after you've mocked a victim of gang rape
with her rapists and then been stupid enough to share that story, don't
expect sympathy from me.) Ava and I have repeatedly warned against that nutcase over the years (in terms of the nutcase and Assange, see "TV: Saboteurs").

The
harm she's done on the Assange case will not go away. That's why you
don't lie. Someone's going to believe you're on 'our side.' When it
comes to rape, however, 'our side' gets a hell of a lot smaller and any
woman capable of self-honesty will admit that. When it comes to the
environment, the left is one big happy family, hugging trees and
replanting forests. When it comes to issues of violence against women,
the left willing to call it out is about a quarter of what it was for
the environment.

Michael at least says "my
view" at one of his most ludicrous moments. But he's an attorney and he
should know better so the "my view" is nonsense. He asserts that
Julian "has a right to leave that embassy, get on a plane and go to
Ecuador. Will the British ever honor that . . ."?

The
British right to arrest him -- he is a fugitive -- trumps the right of
Ecuador. They are on British soil. It is not complicated and Michael
knows that. As does Julian Assange which is why Assange isn't strolling
through London to an airport right now.

The
dishonesty is so disappointing because we don't need more of it on the
left. If you want to make a case for Julian Assange going to Ecuador,
you should be able to do so without resorting to falsehoods. When
Michael Ratner, an intelligent and usually thoughtful person, presents
the sloppy throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks faux
legal argument that he has, anyone paying attention is going to wonder:
"If Michael Ratner can't make a plausible legal case, does that mean
that there's not one?"

In fairness to Michael,
he's not speaking as a legal analyst and shouldn't have been presented
as such. He's working for Assange. A real public affairs program that
operated under journalistic standards would have presented him with
another guest who took a different opinion. And the back-and-forth of
such an exchange probably would have greatly sharpened Michael's own
argument.

He makes assertions on aslyum
that are puzzling at best. He asserts that "once you've been given
asylum, it's not like you can be then picked up by a country and sent
into the hands of your persecutor. Whether it's in the car, whether
it's on the streets, wherever you are, it's illegal to do so." There's
no UK case law that backs that up. If there's an international law that
states that, I'm unfamiliar with it -- I am unfamiliar with it and many
countries are also unfamiliar with it because this standard he's
applying has not been the standard. If you are wanted for murder and
you claim you're a political target and Spain agrees to give you asylum,
unless you are in Spain, the authorities have the right and will
attempt to arrest you. This is not a new development.

Michael
Ratner is incorrect when he says it's the law. Asylum isn't a floating
space in the midst of a game of tag-you're-it. You're granted asylum
at an embassy or in that host country. By Michael's logic, Julian can
remain in London, he can travel all over and, if anyone tries to arrest
him, he just says, "Uh-uh, I've got asylum from Ecuador." That's not
how it works.

Michael asserts that, "It's
illegal for them to stop Julian Assange trying to get to Ecuador." In
what world? Does he not know any of the asylum cases during the lead up
to WWII? I cannot believe anyone would make such a claim.

We
deserve better than that from Michael Ratner or from anyone. What was
broadcast today was a bunch of cheery, beat off material. I believe the
left has self-pleasured enough for the last four years. Let's try
reality and honesty instead.

We can discuss
this again tomorrow but for now I am tired of people lying to make their
political cases, I am tired of all the whoring. I realize it's
ingrained in some, certainly a number were more than willing to repeat
as gospel whatever the party line was out of the mouth of Joseph
Stalin. It needs to stop. Kimberly Wilder is a smart and caring
person. She's repeated a false claim because the left media whored.
They refused to tell the truth. That needs to stop right now. On the
left we need to be smarter and more factual. We're not helping anyone
by dumbing ourselves down. (And Bob Somerby tries to make that argument
every day at The Daily Howler. I wonder how many of us even listen?)

The
left needs to grow the hell up, all of us. And that includes losing
the need to paint anyone who thinks as we do (or appears to) as
marvelous, wonderful and 100% pure. There is a growing number of people
(possibly a small number but it's out there, we encounter them when we
speak to college audiences especially) who feel Assange distracts from
political prisoner Bradley Manning (I agree) and that Assange should
turn himself in already because with his talk show and his this and his
that he's become a joke (it's his decision to turn himself in or not, I
have no opinon on that). I would like that to be the end of it this
week on Assange and hope that Monday, when the latest Law and Disorder Radio, rolls around -- which is hosted by Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and, yes, Michael Ratner
-- that Michael will have sharpened his argument regarding to Julian
Assange and we can open the snapshot with his explaining to us why the
amnesty must take place. He can, for example, present the same claims
as the ethical (or "moral" -- but I refrain from the use of that term
whenever possible) choice. That's fine. But don't claim something's
the law when it's not. We can't afford to be any more ill-informed or
mis-informed in this country. And we can't afford to lose someone as
smart as Michael Ratner to the easy-bake punditry that has afflicted so
many on the left.

Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes,
"The current Muslim holy month of Ramadan was bloody for Iraqis as al
Qaeda in Iraq carried out a number of deadly attacks across the country,
targeting mainly Shiite areas." And the violence of the month
continued today as Iraq was slammed with a wave of violence. RT offers a photo essay of some of the damage. At least nine cities have seen major violence. Kareem Raheem, Mustafa Mahmoud, Jamal al-Badrani, Fadhil al-Badrani, Ali Mohammed, Barry Malone and Patrick Markey (Reuters) note
that while no one has claimed credit for today's violence -- it may
be the work of one group or of many groups and individuals -- the
Islamic State of Iraq has been taking credit for recent violence
(following the announcement of their Breaking The Walls campaign) and "It has been reinvigorated by the inflow of fighters and cash into neighboring Syria,
providing a morale boost and some extra arms and cash, security experts
say. Iraqi insurgents are vowing to retake territory lost during a long
war with American troops." And such a move -- retaking
territory -- would explain why some of the al Qaeda in Iraq that is now a
part of the Free Syrian Army is reportedly buring weapons (see yesterday's snapshot) to prepare for the "after" if President Bashar al-Assad is driven out of power. July 22nd,
the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio recording announcing a new
campaign of violence entitled Breaking The Walls which would include
prison breaks and killing "judges and investigators and their guards."
(They also threatened to attack America on US soil.) Regardless of
which individual or individuals are behind today's attacks, it is a
bloody day in Iraq.

al Bawaba reports,
"In the multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk (north), four car bombs exploded
between 08.15 and 09.30, killing one person and injuring 20 others,
according to a police official and Dr. Wali Karim from the main
hospital in the city. Many members of the security forces were among the
wounded, added the two sources." Xinhua reports,
"In addition, gunmen with assault rifles attacked a police checkpoint
at an intersection just west of Baquba, killing one policeman and
wounding another, the source added. Meanwhile, a member of the
government-backed Awakening Council group was gunned down by gunmen near
his house in Aswad village, some 9 km north of Baquba, he said." Near
Baquba, Alsumaria reports,
MP Hussain Kazhim Mahmud declared that his bodyguards were attacked
today by 30 gunmen in three cars outside his Khalis office resulting in
one assailant being killed and two of his bodyguards being injured (he
is part of the Sadr bloc in Parliament). Salam Faraj (AFP) reports,
"In Al-Garma, near the former insurgent bastion of Fallujah west of
Baghdad, four policemen were killed and three others wounded in a
shooting at a checkpoint, according to police Major Enes Mahmud and Dr
Omar Dalli at Fallujah hospital. As emergency responders and civilians
rushed to the scene, a roadside bomb exploded, wounding three others." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports,
"A car bomb exploded outside a real-estate building in northeastern
Baghdad on Thursday morning, killing six people and wounding 32 others,
police said. Also Thursday, a car bomb exploded on a busy road in
al-Taji district on the northern outskirts of Baghdad, wounding nine
people, police said." Alsumaria reports
the Tikrit police disarmed a car bomb at noon today but a Salahuddin
Province home bombing resulted in the death of the wife of Mushtaq Ahmed
al-Jaffar and left him and three of their sons injured. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) counts 29 dead and one-hundred-and-one people injured.

BBC News notes
of today's violence throughout Iraq, "Many of the attacks targeted
security personnel." Police, soldiers, Sahwa. There are 15 more days in
the month but already August has been a violent one. Through
yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 206 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.

Press
TV: Why do you think there has been a spike in attacks and violence in
the past month. Do you see any relation to the current situation in
Syria as the terrorist groups there are getting support from the US and
its allies?

al-Motallebi: Yes, I think one of the factors, one
of the reasons for the escalation of violence in Iraq could be for
regional reasons from regional interferences.

Unfortunately, we
have very complicated circumstances happening in Syria and a lot of
al-Qaeda is transferring their activities from Iraq into Syria and vice
versa.

Also, we have a complicated political situation with KRG,
the Kurdistan Regional Government. Usually whenever we have differences
with Kurdistan there would be an escalation of violence.

We are
not sure of the relationship between the two events, but we cannot
escape the fact that there are may be regional interference from
inside Iraq or from Syria and definitely Turkey and Saudi Arabia will
always be accused of instigating unrest in Iraq.

State of Law may have also been behind the rumors about the KRG earlier today. Alsumaria reports
KRG President Massoud Barzani has denied that the KRG will be providing
asylum to the residents of Camp Ashraf. What is Camp Ashraf?

Since
Barack Obama has been sworn in as US president, Nouri has ordered not
one but two attacks on Camp Ashraf resulting in multiple deaths. Let's
recap. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on
28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least
nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the
operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more
than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other
protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes
that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions."

In
recent weeks the situation surrounding the safety of 3,400 members of
an Iranian opposition group based in Iraq has taken a significant turn
in the halls of the White House.

As
the US takes a keener interest in protecting these Iranians from the
clutches of the regime in Tehran, it appears that this US administration
has finally realised that it cannot allow Iraq to fall into the hands
of Tehran.

How the story of Camp Ashraf now plays out will tell us much about where the future of Iraq lies.

[. . .]

[US
Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton and her team in Iraq must succeed
in guaranteeing the safety of the Camp Ashraf residents. This will allow
the UN to carry out the ultimate relocation work. Not only will this
ensure that the US has carried out its humanitarian duty, but further it
will leave Iraq less influenced by Iran and the US seen as a nation
which lives up to its obligation. This is something that the entire
democratic opposition movements of the Arab Spring will look to for hope
and is a test which the US cannot fail.

The
US State Dept may make a decision in October, it may not, as to the
residents. The US federal court system is expecting the State Dept to
have made a decision by then.

Roseanne
Barr: David, you know one thing I want to say is Obama is trying to
take our medical marijuana over there in California and trying to send
in federal troops to get our medical marijuana and I'll tell you this,
Obama, you'll get my joint when you pry it ouf of my cold, dead
fingers. That's when. And I know -- I don't want to get Obama's kill
list. You know, I got to look out for drones on my way home now I know.

David Letterman: Let's say a person signs up for the medical marijuana --

Roseanne Barr: Okay.

David Letterman: -- is there a list of ailments that you have to support or prove you have?

Roseanne
Barr: You know, it's not funny, Dave. It's a real medicine that a lot
of people can't live without. I mean it really helps with mental
illness and stuff which is why I use it. [Applause.] The only bad
thing is you can't use it and own a gun. If you're on the medical
marijuana, they won't let you own a gun. Well all these drunks are
walking around with guns. And now, did you know that in the state of
California that big government is trying to get these porn stars and
force them to wear rubbers. The founding fathers are rolling over in
their graves on that, Dave.

While
I deeply respect Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein, I'm in the process of
organizing a Peace & Freedom Party affiliate here in Florida and
hope to place Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan on the November ballot. We
filed our qualifying paperwork -- i.e., the party's officers, bylaws
and constitution -- with the Division of Elections on Tuesday.

Sam
Sacks: The Green Party is the only political party today running on a
new Economic Bill of Rights guaranteeing a job, a living wage, quality
health care, a good education and housing and other rights to all
Americans. Not only that, the Green Party is the only political party
that's speaking out against the corporate takeover of our democracy and
economy. It's running on a platform to overturn corporate personhood,
guarantee a vote for all eligible Americans and set up a robust public
financing system that breaks up the two party duopoly in America and
brings new ideas into the political debate. Our nation is in crisis
today and it's obvious that doubling down on 30 years of failed economic
policy won't work and neither will trimming around the edges and
looking for minor tweeks. We need revolutionary change in America and
joining me now to talk about how that happens is Dr. Jill Stein, the
Green Party's presidential candidate for president of the United
States. Dr. Stein, welcome.

Jill Stein: Thank you so much, Sam, it's great to be with you.

Sam
Sacks: It's an honor to have you on. You're proposing this Bill of
Economic Rights I just mentioned that [US President Franklin D.]
Roosevelt tried to propose. Had he been successful 70 years ago, would
we have been able to see CEOs taking more and more profits that should
have gone to better wages? Would we have seen Too Big To Fail jump up
on Wall Street and crash our economy? Would we be in the mess that
we're in today.

Jill
Stein: Well we certainly shouldn't be. You know, where we'd be is
hard to say because even those reforms that were passed in that era
following the Great Depression, those reforms to separate the investment
from the commercial banks, the Social Security, Medicare, you know, the
various reforms that have grown out of the New Deal and beyond, they
are -- they havehave been under attack for decades. So it's hard to say
where we'd be, but it's clear that right now we are in a real crisis.
And that crisis give us, you know, it's really a perfect storm for
revisting where we are. And that means not only an Economic Bill of
Rights, but also a full employment program to put people back to work.
We did this in the midst of the Great Depression. And the New Deal
substantially got us out of the Great Depression. It reduced the
unemployment rate to about 25% down to about 10% before the start of
WWII which finished the job. But prior to that it had been enormously
successful. There's no reason why we don't do that today. We could
have a full employment program by directly creating jobs -- for
basically the amount of money that the president spent in the stimulus
package of 2009. Instead of jump starting two to three million jobs
which was actually what was created then, we could actually create 16
million jobs directly, which in turn would create a secondary waves of
about 8 million jobs, get us to 25 million jobs which is what we need.
And the difference is that instead of providing tax breaks to large
corporations which was the bulk of that stimulus package, instead we
can directly provide jobs at the community level, provide national
funding, but put communities in charage of deciding what jobs they need
to become sustainable not only economically, [but] socially and also
environmentally. And in doing that, we not only solve the economic
emergency that we're facing but also the climate emergency because the
Green New Deal jump starts that transformation to the Green Economy
which is absolutely essential if we're to survive not only into the next
century but increasingly we're looking at into the next decade or two
given the rate at which climate change is accelerating and exceeding the
wildest and most dire predictions of the science which is has been
proven really to have been too optimistic. So, in our view, the clock
is ticking. We don't have time to fool around with the unemployment
crisis or the climate crisis that we're facing.